Comparison of myLTSPimpleFoam and simpleFoam Part 1 of 3 (calculation setup for simpleFoam)

I compared myLTSPimpleFoam with simpleFoam. Ahmed body in previous articles was used for the test case. The computational grid is presented here.

The calculation setup for simpleFoam is almost identical to the previous case, but I made slight changes for fvSchemes and fvSolution.

fvSchemes (differences from the previous article are colored in red):

ddtSchemes
{
    default         steadyState;
}

gradSchemes
{
    default         Gauss linear;
    grad(U)         cellLimited Gauss linear 1;
}

divSchemes
{
    default         none;
    div(phi,U)      bounded Gauss GammaV 1;
    div(phi,k)      bounded Gauss Gamma 1;
    div(phi,epsilon) bounded Gauss Gamma 1;
    div((nuEff*dev(T(grad(U))))) Gauss linear;
}

laplacianSchemes
{
    default         Gauss linear limited corrected 0.333;
}

interpolationSchemes
{
    default         linear;
}

snGradSchemes
{
    default         limited corrected 0.333;
}

fluxRequired
{
    default         no;
    p               ;
}


fvSolution (differences from the previous article are colored in red):

solvers
{
    "p.*"
    {
        solver          GAMG;
        tolerance       1e-8;
        relTol          0;
        smoother        GaussSeidel;
        nPreSweeps      1;
        nPostSweeps     2;
        cacheAgglomeration true;
        nCellsInCoarsestLevel 500;
        agglomerator    faceAreaPair;
        mergeLevels     1;
    }

    "(U.*|k.*|epsilon.*)"
    {
        solver           smoothSolver;
        smoother         GaussSeidel;
        tolerance        1e-8;
        relTol           0;
        nSweeps          1;
    }
}

SIMPLE
{
    nNonOrthogonalCorrectors 2;
    pRefCell 0;
    pRefValue 0;
}

relaxationFactors
{
    fields
    {
        p       0.3;
    }
    equations
    {
        U       0.7;
        k       0.7;
        epsilon 0.7;
    }
}